GANGADHAR BALGOPAL NAIR Vs. VOLTAS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench while hearing Letters Patent Appeal No.134 of 1995 has referred the following questions for answer by a larger Bench:-

(2.) The Division Bench was hearing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgement of the learned single Judge who held that Model Standing Order 4C did not automatically apply to the industrial establishment of the respondent no.1 without amendment of its certified standing orders. Therefore, the appellant-workman is not entitled to the status of a permanent employee on completion of 240 days uninterrupted service. The Industrial Tribunal whose judgement was in question had held that the workman is entitled to such status of permanency because clause 4C is inserted in the Model Standing Orders.

(3.) In brief, the dispute is as follows:- The appellant was employed as a workman in the industrial establishment of the respondent no.1 which is engaged in the manufacturing of engineering goods. He challenged his termination under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the "MRTU & PULP Act, 1971", complaining of breach of item nos.5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV thereof. Inter alia, his contention was that he was entitled to the status of a permanent workman under clause 4C of the model standing orders introduced by the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) (Amendment) Rules, 1977. The respondent no.1 resisted this claim on the ground that its own standing orders which were certified on 25.11.1966 did not contain any provision for confirmation of an employee as permanent upon completion of 240 days. The respondent no.1 s contention was that there is no provision in their certified standing orders akin or similar to clause 4C of the model standing orders and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. The Industrial Court held that clause 4C of the model standing orders applies and the respondent-company ought to have made the appellant permanent by an order in writing. There was, therefore, breach of item no.9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The appellant was, therefore, directed to be reinstated with back wages and all benefits with effect from 23.11.1987. A learned single Judge of this Court in a Writ Petition filed by the respondent-employer relying, inter alia, on the judgment of this Court in May & Baker Ltd. v. Shri Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia, reported in 1991 II LLN 879, held that clause 4C of the model standing orders did not automatically apply to the establishment of the respondent no.1 and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to be made permanent.